Ready... Aim... DEBUNK!
Ernst Haeckel used the idea of a Lemuria to explain fossil relatives of lemurs in Africa and Asia while Lemurs are now confined to madagascar. It was
also a convenient excuse for the lack of a missing link. Haeckel made a career of backing the wrong theories and was caught using fraudulent data.
The name Lemuria was coined by Phillip Sclater, a geologist.
www.sacred-texts.com... on Ernst Haeckel's History of Creation, 2nd edition, 1876
Of the five now existing continents," writes Ernst Haeckel, in his great work "The History of Creation," 1 "neither Australia, nor America, nor
Europe can have been this primæval home [of man], or the so-called 'Paradise,' the 'cradle of the human race.' Most circumstances indicate
Southern Asia as the locality in question. Besides Southern Asia, the only other of the now existing continents which might be viewed in this light is
Africa. But there are a number of circumstances (especially chorological facts) which suggest that the primeval home of man was a continent now sunk
below the surface of the Indian Ocean, which extended along the south of Asia, as it is at present (and probably in direct connection with it),
towards the east, as far as Further India and the Sunda Islands; towards the west, as far as Madagascar and the south-eastern shores of Africa. We
have already mentioned that many facts in animal and vegetable geography render the former existence of such a South Indian continent very probable.
Sclater has given this continent the name of Lemuria, from the semi-apes which were characteristic of it. By assuming this Lemuria to have been man's
primæval home, we greatly facilitate the explanation of the geographical distribution of the human species by migration
Madame Blavatsky, the founder of theosophy and originator of the more fantastic Lemuria myths wrote her first book, Isis Unvieled, in 1877, one year
after Haeckel's book. The more relevant work according to my understanding of the Wikipedia article is The Secret Doctrine, which wasn't published
There can be no attempt to take Blavatsky seriously, because the stated goal of her Theosophical Society was to merge religion and science. She
produced a false story of supposed ancient religous origins to corroborate the new hypothesis offered by Haeckel, but when Haeckel's assumption
became unneccessary and unlikely thanks to the discovery of tektonics, the ficticious nature of Blavatsky's "secret doctrine" became evident.
Also from the Wikipedia on Lemuria:
In a section of the late Mayan period Madrid Codex that is sometimes called the Troano Codex, fanciful archaeologists in the days before Mayan glyphs
had been translated thought they were able to interpret illustrations as 'records' of a continent in the Pacific, destroyed by volcanic activity.
Supposedly, a similar legend has been translated from unspecified 'Sanskrit tablets' that describe a continent called Rutas.
The continent of Mu imagined by Augustus Le Plongeon (1826-1908) is possibly a permutation of ideas about what Lemuria might have been.
I googled Augustus Le Plongeon and found out that he is one of those who attempted to "interpret" the Mayan glyphs before they were actually able to
be translated. Obviously, if he had actually been able to interpret them, he would have been able to interpret them all, and would have spelled out
the rules of the Mayan language for us.
During his time in the Yucatan, Le Plongeon learned the stories of the local Indians, which included those about magic and lore. He also learned their
language and culture. He also was the first to excavate the ruins of Chichen Itza. He was able to use his photographic skills to take over “five
hundred photos” (Early Publishers, Explorers, …) of the area. During his last period of fieldwork, which was from 1883-1885 he spent most of his time
in the Chichen Itza area. During that period he found that there was some existence of Masonic orders during the ancient Yucatan era and that Mayan
sailors had traveled all over the world establishing civilizations in places like India, Egypt, and Burma.
During his lifetime, Le Plongeon wrote many documents. They are Dream of Maya: Augustus and Alice Le Plongeon in nineteenth century Yucatan, Maya
Trilogy: Plays about Augustus and Alice Le Plongeon, Maya/Atlantis: Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx, Origins of the Egyptians, and Sacred Mysteries
Among the Mayas and the Quiches, 115000 Years Ago. Also with his knowledge of the languages he was able to translate the Mayan book Troano Codex.
The codex Le Plongeon was working with dates somewhere between the 15th and 17th centuries. It is apparently an almanac, just like each of the other 3
codices currently known to exist. Solid translations do not seem to be available online, and the translations offered by the "mystic" crowd are
highly in doubt for reasons of logic.
Eric Thompson on the Madrid: "...appears to be of late date (15th century?); workmanship is crude and careless. The use of Yucatecan-Campeche year
bearers is a pretty clear indication of when it was composed. ...Largely confined to divinatory almanacs, which include hunting, beekeeping, and
idolmaking; it has no astronomical information"
The comparisons to Atlantis are interesting, but they serve mostly to make me incredibly skeptical of the translation, which they admit is far from
complete. If they can decipher 1/3 of the manuscript perfectly (and yet they can't spell check their website) why haven't they got ANY idea what the
other 2/3s says? I read a little bit of Spanish. Emphasis on the "little". When I try to read it, I don't get several good paragraphs and a big
mysterious blank. I get a bunch of little blanks between sentence fragments. A flyer for a Cinco De Mayo party might read "On the 5th of May...
history... celebration... music... chips and salsa..." and of course there would be plenty of loose pronouns articles and numbers floating around and
I'd at least know where the verbs were by spotting conjugation. So I could give you a partial translation of the whole... not a perfect translation
of 1/3. That is why I say there are logical problems with the fantastic translations upon which all Mu stories appear to be based.
Although I can't find actual translations, more reliable sources say that the codexs are almanacs concerning hunting, rainfall, etc. The only thing
that might even hint at an ancient date for the events described in the madrid codex is that long-count calendar dates are not included in it, nor is
The codex can actually be viewed here:
Archaeology.org makes a case for the document being produced in the 1620s in a part of South America that had not yet fallen to the Spanish. paper
with latin text appears to be incorporated into the pages, the depiction of new year shows planting (the calendar system apparently changed so that
planting season was near the new year in the 17th century.) You can read for specifics. There is a counter arguement that the latin paper was merely
part of a patch added to the document.
So to wrap up- Lemuria is an outdated evolutionist hypothesis expanded upon by mystics who can be considered debunked by the fall of the scientific
hypothesis which they supported.
The Codex which inspired the story of Mu does not seem to be anything exceedingly ancient or mysterious, and nobody seems to be volunteering solid
translations of it. The photographer who claimed to translate the codex while photographing it has given many fantastic and clearly ficticious
theories about the Mayans.
The idea is a serious waste of time. (And this is the opinion of someone who still holds some hope for Atlantis!)